requirement to provide old test numbers as opposed to new no

[fjpw2007]

Hi,

I have recently heard that old certification numbers now have to be recorded in your paperwork when doing a PAT test even if you put a new sticker on the same appliance.
I understand that should you not do so, then that particular applaince would be non-compliant under the existing Code of Practice.
Is this right, as I seen nothing referring to this in the existing Code of Practice? If this is so, please let me know where I can find this requirement.

Thanks

 

[ricicle]

What do you mean by certification numbers ?
Good practice says an appliance should hold the same inventory number throughout it's useable life to enable traceability etc.

 

[ericmark]

If one looks at the Form V1.1 Equipment register it requires:-
Register no.
Location
Equipment Description
Serial no.
Frequency of
Formal visual inspection
Combined inspection and test

If one was to change the register number one would need to alter the register to show new number against the serial number of the appliance.

It would mean to be able to see a trend one you need to list by serial number rather than register number and of course you could not use the Unique register number twice so over time the register would become very large and so would the numbers.

I know it is common practice for people PAT testing to stick a new label with new number as the tester does not have a list of what is to be tested and does not know if the item tested belonged to the same firm the last time it was tested.

But it also means he has to note the Location, Equipment Description, & Serial number for every item tested. The manager then has the job of matching up the results. Likely the manager does not even realise he is the manager and is completely unaware of his responsibility.

With in house testing the manager likely does know what his duties are and would consider the hassle of working with changing equipment ID numbers was far too high and would insist they remained the same.

But there was no requirement to PAT test as such under HSE regulations. One has to ensure the equipment is safe to use and the PAT testing is just one method to comply. One has to show the HSE that an item was tested and in a small shop with 6 items one could have no serial numbers or register number as there is only one kettle so PAT testing results for KETTLE clearly refer to that kettle.

But as the size increases we have more than one of every item and some method needs to be adopted to show that the results recorded were for that item of equipment.

We all know if some thing goes wrong people will go to great lengths to move the blame to some one else. So after an accident it would be expected that an owner would do things like take a valid sticker off one item and stick it on an item which had caused an accident.

Where the equipment register has been correctly kept it can be soon shown that the sticker did not belong and the tester would not be blamed. But without that register then the electrician will have a hard time proving it was not that item he tested.

Even then I have seen some tricks played. Where the foreman has used Excel for his records and has copied and pasted last years results into this years records and claimed we had run out of labels but all tests had been done. And he got away with it.

What one has to consider is how far does one go? One firm printed out all results and electricians signed the results sheets so no one could get away with altering the computer records.

But unless you go to that sort of length some one can cheat. And human nature says they will cheat. But since a visual inspection should be completed by the user in real terms most accidents can be blamed on the user in some way.

Either that or lack of training by employer. Even where great lengths are taken to comply mistakes are made. I had great fun when asked the question who should test the equipment answering "me". At which I was told no the electrician should test it. When I pointed out I was that man.

I then showed him how many items were not tested in his office. Not a single lead set was tested. Yes I was being pedantic in a way. But this is the whole question.

If one can test all items by not writing down all the information is that better than testing just half of the items as laid down in the IET guide lines and regulations? At some point one has to say it's good enough. I suppose what one should do is write out a risk assessment to show the risk of some one trying to fiddle the system is less than the risk of items being missed as they were not on the system. Workers own radio for example.

But where does the paperwork stop and the real work start?